Conservative, Liberal Judges Agree in Tossing Trump's Election Lawsuits

Trump
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania enter the Rose Garden before 'pardoning' the national Thanksgiving Turkey at the White House November 24. The Trump campaign has produced no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud or other irregularities, and judges have been quickly dismissing the many cases that have been filed. Chip Somodevilla//Getty

Judges with ties to Republicans and ones with ties to Democrats have both continuously rejected arguments from President Donald Trump over the election of his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Trump's team has filed more than 30 lawsuits in six key battleground states and Washington, D.C., challenging the election outcome without success, and it vows to file more. Several cases ultimately were dropped by the campaign without judicial action amid questions about their merits or venues, but others have produced an overwhelming consensus from a politically mixed-bag of judges.

Trump hasn't conceded the election, but Monday evening signaled that he would no longer stall Biden's transition efforts even ask he vowed to continue to challenge the election outcome in court.

"Trump's lawsuits will continue to fail, as they have in over 30 cases since Election Day, states will continue to certify their results, and Joe Biden will be sworn in as president on January 20, 2021," Biden senior adviser Bob Bauer said in a statement to reporters Tuesday.

Trump's campaign continues to solicit donations from supporters through multiple emails and text messages each day, though disclaimers on the donation pages show that most of the money will be set aside for Trump's newly formed political action committee, rather than his legal fund.

"We are going to continue combatting election fraud around the country as we fight to count all the legal votes," Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis said in a statement Monday night. "Americans must be assured that the final results are fair and legitimate."

The campaign has produced no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud or other irregularities, and judges have been quickly dismissing the many cases that have been filed.

With support from the GOP-controlled Senate, Trump has spent the past four years focused on filling judicial openings with his allies, but so far it hasn't produced an election win for him.

Here are some of the judges who have ruled on Trump's arguments:

Pennsylvania

U.S. District Court, Middle District: In Trump v. Boockvar, the Trump campaign unsuccessfully argued against the certification of the Pennsylvania results based on claims of fraud in the state's mail-in voting system.

Judge Matthew Brann, who issued a scathing rebuke of Trump's legal team in his dismissal of the case, was appointed by Democrat Barack Obama to the court in 2012, but Brann previously was a longtime GOP official in Pennsylvania and has been a conservative jurist.

"This claim, like Frankenstein's Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent," he wrote. "It is not in the power of this court to violate the Constitution."

U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign argued there was insufficient access by observers.

Judge Paul Diamond, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, shot back at Trump's attorneys after they admitted that they were allowed to have observers for the ballot counting: "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?"

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Trump v. Boockvar, the Trump campaign argued that the secretary of state's deadline extension for identification for some mail-in ballots was unlawful.

Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, a Republican who was elected in 2001, handed the Trump team a slight victory when she agreed that a small number of ballots should be excluded from the official count.

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas: In Trump v. Bucks County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign pulled a tactic that it's used in other cases, seeking to have some ballots tossed because of questions over signatures.

Judge Robert Baldi, who ruled against Trump's claims, is a Republican but was first appointed by Pennsylvania's then-Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat.

Court of Common Pleas: In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020 General Election, the Trump campaign challenged some ballots with minor issues—including missing dates.

Judge James Crumlish, a Democrat who was elected to a 10-year term this year, rejected the arguments as minor.

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas: In Trump v. Montgomery County Board of Elections, Trump's campaign argued that ballots should be tossed for voters who were notified of errors, including missed signatures.

Judge Richard Haaz, a Democrat who received his post through election, rejected the argument and ruled that the ballots were still valid.

Nevada

U.S. District Court of Nevada: In Stokke v. Cegavske, Trump supporters, backed by the campaign, argued against the use of an automated signature verification machine.

Judge Andrew Gordon, who was appointed to the bench by Democrat Barack Obama, rejected the case for lack of evidence.

Michigan

Michigan State Court: In Trump v. Benson, the Trump campaign argued that some of its election observers had been blocked from watching the ballot count.

Judge Cynthia Stephens, who was appointed by Michigan's Democratic governor in 2008, accusing the case of being based on "hearsay" and without evidence.

Michigan's 3rd Circuit Court, Wayne County: In Constantino v. Detroit, some Republican poll watchers sought an audit of the vote claiming they believed there had been fraud in the tabulation.

Chief Judge Timothy Kenny, who has been on the bench since 1996, ruled that the lawsuit was based on a misunderstanding about process. Kenny's position is an elected post without political party affiliation.

Georgia

Georgia Superior Court District Eastern Judicial Circuit: In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020, the Trump campaign argued that ballots taken after 7 p.m. on Election Day should not be counted.

Judge James Bass, who was first appointed to the bench by then-Governor Zell Miller, a Democrat, in 1995, dismissed the case with a brief statement citing lack of evidence that any ballots had been received late.

The Trump campaign didn't immediately respond to Newsweek's request about the current track record in court.